Subject: [Tools-team] Request for IETF last call on draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-06.txt

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:56:45 +0200

Hi Harald,

	I'm hereby requesting an IETF last call on 
draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-06.txt .  I am not sending this
note as a publication request to the secretariat, as I'm not sure
that it's right to publish this as an RFC, but if you think that
should be done, let me know and I'll send this to them too.  
In any case, below is the publication check-list.

	Regards,

		Henrik

----

1) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID and do
   they believe this ID is sufficiently baked to forward to the IESG
   for publication?

Yes, and yes.

2) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and
   key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or
   breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

Yes, it has been reviewed both within and outside the team, and
I'm satisfied with the reviews so far.

3) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
   particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
   complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

The review needed now is IETF-wide review.

4) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
   you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example,
   perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document,
   or whether there really is a need for it, etc., but at the same
   time these issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has
   indicated it wishes to advance the document anyway.

There are two concerns:

   A. I'd like to have a change in policy in what the secretariat
   accepts, so it would accept and keep xml versions of drafts, but
   I think this is outside the scope of this draft, and may need
   a request to the secretariat to change policy in this respect.

   B. I would also have liked to have the draft more exactly specify
   that chair approval of -00 workgroup drafts should be possible 
   both as pre- and post- approval, and both through a web interface
   and through mail, but the team could not agree on this.

5) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
   represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
   being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with
   it?

Apart from item B mentioned above, the team consensus is clearly
behind this document.

6) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
   discontent?  If so, please summarize what are they upset about.

No.

7) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to _all_ of the
   ID nits?  (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html).

Yes.

8) Does the document a) split references into normative/informative,
   and b) are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
   also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
   (Note: the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative
   references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are
   also ready for publication as RFCs.)

a) Yes, references are split
b) No, there are no IDs among the normative references.

_______________________________________________
Tools-team mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-team

---

From: "Alex Rousskov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:28:53 -0600

>    and through mail, but the team could not agree on this.

I have no problem with specifying these things "more exactly" as long as  
we do not end up documenting out-of-scope tools. The current wording was  
meant to imply that both pre- and post- submission  approvals are  
supported. There is no disagreement on this anymore (although the text can  
be improved).

I do not think ID submission draft should document in detail how pre- or  
post-submission approval is done. Both can and should be automated, IMO,  
but I think such automation is out of this draft scope. Do you disagree?

Thanks,

Alex.

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 01:22:09 +0200

Hi Alex,

Alex Rousskov wrote:
> I have no problem with specifying these things "more exactly" as long 
> as  we do not end up documenting out-of-scope tools. The current wording 
> was  meant to imply that both pre- and post- submission  approvals are  
> supported. There is no disagreement on this anymore (although the text 
> can  be improved).

Ok, good to have that clear.

> I do not think ID submission draft should document in detail how pre- 
> or  post-submission approval is done. Both can and should be automated, 
> IMO,  but I think such automation is out of this draft scope. Do you 
> disagree?

Well, I would have preferred it to be specified in this document, as
I think it will be implemented as part of this tool.  But I haven't 
wanted to re-engage in what I felt was a discussion we'd already had,
and failed to reach an agreement on.  I guess it will work out without
a more full specification, too.

	Henrik